DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2, 7, 8, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hathaway (US 2016/0304028).
As to claim 1 Hathaway discloses a scene system comprising:
a vehicle configured to be positioned proximate a scene between an approaching vehicle and the scene;
a sensor unit (Paragraph 32 “Referring now to FIG. 2, an embodiment of a vicinity monitoring unit 102 of the advance warning system 100 is shown in an exemplary operational scenario. In the embodiment shown, the vicinity monitoring unit 102 includes a radar sensor such as, for example, an electronically scanning radar coupled to a warning device 116 such as, for example, a long-range acoustic device (LRAD). In the embodiment of FIG. 2, two vicinity monitoring units 102 are shown, one mounted to the back of a construction vehicle 110, such as a paint striping vehicle, and one placed near a construction worker 114.”); and
one or more processing circuits configured to:
monitor one or more characteristics associated with the approaching vehicle based on data acquired by the sensor unit (Paragraph 32 “In other embodiments, a warning message could be sent only to certain drivers exhibiting hazardous behavior, such as excessive speed.”);
determine a threat level associated with the approaching vehicle based on the one or more characteristics associated with the approaching vehicle(Paragraph 32 “In other embodiments, a warning message could be sent only to certain drivers exhibiting hazardous behavior, such as excessive speed.”); and
transmit a control signal to the approaching vehicle based on the threat level, wherein the control signal is configured to at least one of (i) cause the approaching vehicle to provide an indication regarding the vehicle and the scene to an operator of the approaching vehicle or (ii) limit or adjust operation of the approaching vehicle (Paragraph 32 “In some embodiments, the system 100 may trigger an audible warning from the warning device 116 when the oncoming vehicle 112 crosses a specified velocity or distance threshold. In some embodiments, the vicinity monitoring unit 102 may include a control device for interfacing with the radar and controlling the warning device 116. In such embodiments, the risk evasion system 100 may be utilized to warn only those drivers exhibiting dangerous behaviors and tailoring the warning to those behaviors, resulting in a more effective warning that is less intrusive to the general public.”).
As to claim 2 Hathaway discloses a scene system wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the control signal to the approaching vehicle to cause the approaching vehicle to provide the indication to the operator of the approaching vehicle in response to the threat level exceeding a threat threshold (Paragraph 32).
As to claim 7 Hathaway discloses a scene system wherein the one or more characteristics include at least one of a speed of the approaching vehicle, a heading of the approaching vehicle, a relative distance of the approaching vehicle to the vehicle or the scene, a path of travel of the approaching vehicle, a size of the approaching vehicle, or a type of the approaching vehicle (Paragraph 32).
As to claim 8 Hathaway discloses a scene system wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the control signal to the approaching vehicle based on the threat level to limit or adjust the operation of the approaching vehicle (Paragraph 32).
As to claim 11 Hathaway discloses a scene system wherein the indication is indicative of one or more mitigating procedures for the operator of the approaching vehicle to take to reduce the threat level(Paragraph 32).
As to claim 12 Hathaway discloses a scene system wherein the indication is indicative of at least one of (i) a location of the vehicle and the scene or (ii) a distance of the approaching vehicle relative to the vehicle and the scene(Paragraph 32).
As to claim 13 Hathaway discloses a scene system wherein the indication includes at least one of an audible alert, a visual alert, or a haptic alert (Paragraph 32).
As to claim 14 Hathaway discloses a scene system wherein the sensor unit is at least one of located on the vehicle or deployable from the vehicle, and wherein the one or more processing circuits are located at least one of on the vehicle or remote from the vehicle (Paragraph 32).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-6, 10, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hathaway (US 2016/0304028) in view of Szezerba (US 2026/0014864)
As to claim 3 Szezerba teaches a scene system wherein the threat threshold is a first threat threshold and the indication is a first indication, and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the control signal to the approaching vehicle to cause the approaching vehicle to provide a second indication regarding the vehicle and the scene to the operator of the approaching vehicle in response to the threat level exceeding a second threat threshold greater than the first threat threshold, wherein the second indication is different from the first indication(Paragraph 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Hathaway to include the teachings of having a second control signal for the purpose of warning the approaching vehicle of the work zone.
As to claim 4 Szezerba teaches a scene system wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the control signal to the approaching vehicle to limit or adjust operation of the approaching vehicle in response to the threat level exceeding a third threat threshold greater than the second threat threshold(Paragraph 50).
As to claim 5 Szezerba teaches a scene system wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to limit or adjust operation of the approaching vehicle until the threat level is reduced below the third threat threshold(Paragraph 50).
As to claim 6 Dzezerba teaches a scene system wherein the threat threshold is a first threat threshold, and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the control signal to the approaching vehicle to limit or adjust the operation of the approaching vehicle in response to the threat level exceeding a second threat threshold greater than the first threat threshold(Paragraph 50).
As to claim 10 Dzezerba teaches a scene system wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the control signal to a user device of the operator of the approaching to provide the indication regarding the vehicle and the scene to the operator of the approaching vehicle(Paragraph 50).
As to claim 15 discloses a scene monitoring system comprising: one or more processing circuits configured to:
monitor one or more characteristics associated with an approaching vehicle, the approaching vehicle traveling in a direction towards a scene and a vehicle positioned proximate the scene(Paragraph 32 “In some embodiments, the system 100 may trigger an audible warning from the warning device 116 when the oncoming vehicle 112 crosses a specified velocity or distance threshold. In some embodiments, the vicinity monitoring unit 102 may include a control device for interfacing with the radar and controlling the warning device 116. In such embodiments, the risk evasion system 100 may be utilized to warn only those drivers exhibiting dangerous behaviors and tailoring the warning to those behaviors, resulting in a more effective warning that is less intrusive to the general public.”).;
determine a threat level associated with the approaching vehicle based on the one or more characteristics associated with the approaching vehicle(Paragraph 32 “In some embodiments, the system 100 may trigger an audible warning from the warning device 116 when the oncoming vehicle 112 crosses a specified velocity or distance threshold.;
transmit a control signal to the approaching vehicle based on the threat level to cause the approaching vehicle to provide an indication regarding the vehicle and the scene to an operator of the approaching vehicle in response to the threat level exceeding a first threat threshold(Paragraph 32 “In some embodiments, the system 100 may trigger an audible warning from the warning device 116 when the oncoming vehicle 112 crosses a specified velocity or distance threshold. In some embodiments, the vicinity monitoring unit 102 may include a control device for interfacing with the radar and controlling the warning device 116. In such embodiments, the risk evasion system 100 may be utilized to warn only those drivers exhibiting dangerous behaviors and tailoring the warning to those behaviors, resulting in a more effective warning that is less intrusive to the general public.”).;; and
Hathaway does not explicitly disclose transmit the control signal to the approaching vehicle based on the threat level to limit or adjust operation of the approaching vehicle in response to the threat level exceeding a second threat threshold greater than the first threat threshold.
Szezerba teaches transmit the control signal to the approaching vehicle based on the threat level to limit or adjust operation of the approaching vehicle in response to the threat level exceeding a second threat threshold greater than the first threat threshold(Paragraph 50 “With particular reference to FIG. 5A, the augmented reality image overlay 210a of “slow” may be displayed in different colors (e.g., red, orange, yellow, green), sizes, or gradients based an urgency defined by the distance between the road hazard 32 and the vehicle 10 and/or the velocity of the vehicle 10. Similarly, as shown in FIG. 5B, the virtual image 212a may be updated/changed based on the urgency defined by the distance between the road hazard 32 and the vehicle 10 and/or the velocity of the vehicle 10. For example, the virtual image 212a may update to reflect the change in distance between the road hazard 32 and the vehicle 10 as the vehicle 10 approaches the work zone (i.e., the road hazard 32). Likewise, the virtual image 212a may include escalating warning signs, from merely notifying the driver 102 with “reduce speed ahead,” to warning the driver 102 with “warning reduce speed,” to urging the driver 102 with “reduce speed now.””). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Hathaway to include the teachings of having ga second control signal for the purpose of warning the approaching vehicle of the work zone.
As to claim 16 Szezerba teaches a scene monitoring system wherein the indication is a first indication, and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the control signal to the approaching vehicle to cause the approaching vehicle to provide a second indication regarding the vehicle and the scene to the operator of the approaching vehicle in response to the threat level exceeding a third threat threshold greater than the first threat threshold and less than the second threat threshold, wherein the second indication is different from the first indication(Paragraph 50).
As to claim 17 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 9.
As to claim 18 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 12.
As to claim 19 Hathaway discloses a scene system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
monitor one or more characteristics associated with an approaching vehicle approaching a vehicle and a scene (Paragraph 32 “In other embodiments, a warning message could be sent only to certain drivers exhibiting hazardous behavior, such as excessive speed.”);
determine a threat level associated with the approaching vehicle based on the one or more characteristics associated with the approaching vehicle(Paragraph 32 “In other embodiments, a warning message could be sent only to certain drivers exhibiting hazardous behavior, such as excessive speed.”)
Hathaway does not explicitly disclose provide a first indication regarding the vehicle and the scene to the approaching vehicle in response to the threat level exceeding a first threat threshold;
Szezerba teaches provide a first indication regarding the vehicle and the scene to the approaching vehicle in response to the threat level exceeding a first threat threshold(Paragraph 50 “With particular reference to FIG. 5A, the augmented reality image overlay 210a of “slow” may be displayed in different colors (e.g., red, orange, yellow, green), sizes, or gradients based an urgency defined by the distance between the road hazard 32 and the vehicle 10 and/or the velocity of the vehicle 10. Similarly, as shown in FIG. 5B, the virtual image 212a may be updated/changed based on the urgency defined by the distance between the road hazard 32 and the vehicle 10 and/or the velocity of the vehicle 10. For example, the virtual image 212a may update to reflect the change in distance between the road hazard 32 and the vehicle 10 as the vehicle 10 approaches the work zone (i.e., the road hazard 32). Likewise, the virtual image 212a may include escalating warning signs, from merely notifying the driver 102 with “reduce speed ahead,” to warning the driver 102 with “warning reduce speed,” to urging the driver 102 with “reduce speed now.””). ;
provide a second indication regarding the vehicle and the scene to the approaching vehicle in response to the threat level exceeding a second threat threshold (Paragraph 50 “Likewise, the virtual image 212a may include escalating warning signs, from merely notifying the driver 102 with “reduce speed ahead,” to warning the driver 102 with “warning reduce speed,” to urging the driver 102 with “reduce speed now.””);
provide a third indication regarding the approaching vehicle to one or more personnel devices at the scene in response to the threat level exceeding at least one of the first threat threshold or the second threat threshold(Paragraph 50 “Likewise, the virtual image 212a may include escalating warning signs, from merely notifying the driver 102 with “reduce speed ahead,” to warning the driver 102 with “warning reduce speed,” to urging the driver 102 with “reduce speed now.””); and
control operation of the approaching vehicle in response to the threat level exceeding a third threat threshold(Paragraph 50 “Likewise, the virtual image 212a may include escalating warning signs, from merely notifying the driver 102 with “reduce speed ahead,” to warning the driver 102 with “warning reduce speed,” to urging the driver 102 with “reduce speed now.””).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Hathaway to include the teachings of having ga second control signal for the purpose of warning the approaching vehicle of the work zone.
As to claim 20 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hathaway (US 2016/0304028 in view of Mollenhauer (US 2025/0069509)
As to claim 9 Mollenhauer teaches a scene system further comprising a personnel device configured to be carried by personnel on the scene, wherein the indication is a first indication, and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the control signal to the personnel device to cause the personnel device to provide a second indication to the personnel regarding the approaching vehicle(Paragraph 67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill have a personal device carried by the personnel for the purpose of sending to alerts in the event of a danger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights